Chamber and committees

Police Scotland recently launched the “Don’t be that guy” public awareness campaign asking men to challenge their own and, importantly, each other’s behaviours and attitudes towards women. It is an important message for Scottish society, including for policing as individuals and as a service.

The campaign has generated a lot of interest and seems to have been very well received. It will be good, in time, to see what impact it has.

Police Scotland has advised me that more than 6 million people worldwide have seen the “Don’t be that guy” film and more than 80,000 people have visited the website. Government organisations and police services across the UK and beyond are changing the focus of their public communication on sexual violence to align with the “Don’t be that guy” strategy.

Police Scotland is developing a number of public campaigns for the forthcoming year that target men and which, under the “Don’t be that guy” banner, are related to different aspects of men’s violence.

The recent OSCE report raises important questions about technology-facilitated human trafficking. The Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Scotland) Act 2015 provided police and prosecutors with greater powers to detect and prosecute perpetrators, including when offences are committed online. However, we keep the criminal law under continual review to ensure that it is effective.

The regulation of internet and online service providers remains a reserved matter and we are continuing to liaise closely with the United Kingdom Government on its forthcoming online safety bill.

I have set out the context, and I am not sure that it is right to characterise the situation as a rise in cases, because we think that dog theft has returned to pre-pandemic levels. Education and deterrence are important and we should take note of those things. However, for any new law, we need a clear evidence base to show that it would have a real and beneficial impact. I am sure that members would accept what I have said about that.

As members have indicated, I recognise that the theft of a beloved pet has an impact on those whose pets have been stolen. That has come out strongly in the debate. The criminal law policy question is whether the creation of a specific criminal offence meaningfully adds to the powers of the police and the courts to tackle dog theft, given the wide-ranging powers that courts already have to take relevant matters into account when sentencing.

The debate has been good in raising awareness of the important issue of dog theft. I will conclude on what I hope is a positive note: Police Scotland has advised that its records show that in around half of all cases where a dog has been reported as being stolen, that dog has subsequently been reunited with its owner. It is clear that that is much easier to achieve when the dog has been microchipped. Microchipping is an effective method to identify animals and to help reunite them with their owners when they have been lost or stolen, as has come out strongly in the debate. As members may be aware, the Government made it compulsory for all dogs to be microchipped and for contact details to be kept up to date. It is standard practice for enforcement agencies to scan all dogs that are coming into their care, which helps to ensure that when a lost or stolen dog is recovered, it can be returned to its owners swiftly.

The Government is happy to work with interested parties, including the police and animal welfare organisations, to look at what can be done to improve how pet theft is addressed in our criminal justice system. I am happy to consider any specific new evidence-based proposals on how the criminal law could be improved in this area.

The member is absolutely right to raise that point. We know that that could be a risk and a number of immediate measures have been taken to respond to the crisis, including the monitoring of online searches. A spike in searches for Ukrainian women for sex and marriage has already been recorded. Translated information is being provided to fleeing Ukrainian nationals in country that informs them of their rights and options. The temporary protection mechanism that the European Union established also includes a temporary residence permit and access to the employment market.

On 13 March, the OSCE’s special representative co-ordinator for combating trafficking visited the Polish reception centres, looking to inform policy makers on how best we can support those who are displaced and prevent the risk of trafficking.

Once refugees come into Scotland, we will need to look at risks and safeguarding.

It is great that so many Scots will potentially open up their homes as part of the UK Government’s sponsorship scheme, but we have some concerns about the matching process. We are seeking further information on the approach that will be taken to safeguarding, and I will update the chamber when we have more information on that.

The pandemic presented unprecedented challenges across Scotland’s railways, including increased antisocial behaviour. As we recover, British Transport Police data shows that offences of this nature have been reducing since last October. British Transport Police works closely with partners on joint initiatives to deter crime on the railway. For example, operation safer shores and operation ballaton safely manage high volumes of passengers to Balloch and Ayrshire during holiday periods. The transport minister discussed those concerns in recent meetings with trade unions and her officials liaise with the safer transport strategic group, which is led by British Transport Police.

I thank Maurice Golden for securing this evening’s debate on the important subject of dog theft. We are a nation of dog lovers. As the stories that many members have shared illustrate, dogs can be irreplaceable members of the family. I started my day by being woken up by my dog jumping on to my bed and licking my face. That is not my favourite thing, but there you go.

Over the past two years of the pandemic, dogs and other pets—there has been much mention of cats, too—have provided companionship for many people, especially for those who live alone, at a time when social contact has been limited to prevent the spread of coronavirus. People who have dogs or other pets will find it all too easy to imagine the sense of loss, anger and hopelessness that they would feel if their dog were to be stolen.

Although I absolutely acknowledge that any theft of a dog is a serious matter that can cause real anxiety and upset to its owners, it is important to note, by way of context, that it is not a high-volume crime in Scotland. Last year, the Scottish Government contacted Police Scotland, which told us that its internal records showed that 62 cases had been recorded across the whole of Scotland in 2019-20. That figure increased to 88 cases in 2020-21, but that is still a low number in the context of the number of dogs in Scotland. As members have noted, that increase is likely to have been driven by the rise in demand for puppies during the lockdown in that year.

I agree that there are always ways in which we could improve the data to which we have access. I take that point.

Police Scotland has indicated that, while it does not as yet have statistics for 2021-22, its impression is that levels of dog theft have since fallen and have returned to what they were previously.

It is estimated that there are at least 600,000 dogs in Scotland. In that context, the scale of theft is low, although the theft of a loved family pet is undoubtedly a traumatic experience. As members have noted, dogs are not objects. When they are stolen, that can cause considerable upset. When a person’s pet is lost or stolen, monetary value will be the last thing on their mind. Posters have been put up by people who have lost their pet dog or cat offering rewards for their return that are many times higher than the pet’s monetary value because of the value that the pet has to them.

I am aware of Maurice Golden’s view that the best way for the justice system to address the harm that is posed by the theft of pets is to create a specific statutory offence. My understanding is that the member considers that that would recognise that the theft of a dog can have a serious effect on its owner. I agree that it is important for the criminal justice system to be able to deal effectively with perpetrators of dog theft. As members will know, and as discussed in the debate, theft is a common law offence in Scotland. The maximum penalty that can be imposed is limited only by the sentencing powers of the court in which the offender is being sentenced. I have heard concerns that when an offender is sentenced for theft, the court will be concerned with only the value of the item that has been stolen. However, I do not think that that is the case. Courts are well used to taking into account the facts and circumstances of each case. When sentencing a person for the theft of a dog or other pet, a court would take into account the fact that the offender had stolen a beloved family pet and the impact that that would have had.

Of course, we will consider carefully any bill that is lodged that proposes a specific dog theft offence. A key question is whether that would bring greater transparency to how the justice system responds to those kinds of offences and whether it would provide reassurance to victims that the impact that those crimes have had has been taken into account when perpetrators are sentenced.

We will continue to explore all available options to reduce the prevalence of exploitation, including online. In Scotland, we will look specifically at whether we can do more on that. I would like to have a meeting with the member to discuss the matter further.

On 4 February 2022, the UK Government announced additional priority offences to be written into the UK draft online safety bill. We understand that that will include offences involving sexual exploitation. In principle, we think that that is a welcome move that aims to make the internet hostile to pimps and human traffickers. Once we have more details on that bill, we will consider it carefully, especially in relation to the scope of the domestic model that we are developing to challenge men’s demand for prostitution.

Police Scotland will actively investigate all reports of sexual exploitation, including reports of online sexual exploitation. Procuring for the purposes of prostitution is still an offence if it is committed online.

However, we know that more needs to be done with the powers that are available to us to disrupt that activity and to shut down the routes to exploiting people. We are committed to the development of a model for Scotland that effectively tackles and challenges men’s demand for prostitution. The multi-agency working group that is considering the principles to underpin that model held its penultimate meeting yesterday.

An emerging theme from its work, which I know that Ruth Maguire understands very well, is that, on this issue, online advertising cannot be seen in isolation. It is synonymous with human trafficking, and it intersects with many other forms of gendered violence. We will take that into account as we design the model in consultation with stakeholders. We welcome the views of the cross-party group on commercial sexual exploitation as part of that process.

Verbal or physical assaults on staff are completely acceptable. Although it is no consolation to those staff who the member has rightly suggested are impacted by such behaviour in Scotland, it makes up about 3.6 per cent of the total number of staff assaults on the United Kingdom rail network. The number of physical assaults on staff members has remained consistent throughout the year with only slight fluctuations month by month. The offending is sporadic and follows no pattern in terms of location, offenders or timings. However, as I mentioned in my previous answers, there is multiagency working going on to address this type of offending and put resource into the right areas.

The member mentioned work about particular passengers being problematic time after time and whether that can be looked at. My understanding is that that option will be explored further as part of the work on safety on public transport, but I ask my colleague the Minister for Transport to speak to the member directly on the issue.